|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MO: Nixon Unsure About Vetoing Gun Bills
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon isn’t saying yet whether he’ll veto a sweeping expansion of gun rights passed by lawmakers. Nixon said Friday (5/13) that he will give the measure a comprehensive review. Nixon’s comments came after lawmakers passed the bill on the last day of the 2016 session. The measure would allow most people to carry concealed guns without a permit and create a “stand your ground” right for people to defend themselves with no duty to retreat. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/16/2016)
|
If passed by a veto proof majority, a veto might be only a delaying tactic in MO:
" If the Governor returns a bill with his objections after adjournment sine die, the General Assembly is automatically reconvened on the first Wednesday following the second Monday in September for a period not to exceed ten days to consider vetoed bills. " |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
